[shazamataz]

It has the potential for life, it's not human yet. Yes, it's a blob of cells, that, if left to grow for 9 months, inside the uterus of a woman, will turn into a human, if all goes well.

At first it has no arms, legs, heart, lungs, eyes, fingers, toes, ears, nothing that would make it even resemble a human being. It cannot be sustained outside of a women, so how can it be alive?

Human beings are self sustaining, they live, breath, walk, talk. A blob of cells cannot do any of those things, in fact, if exposed to the air outside of the uterus, if taken out of it's environment, it will cease to exist.

Funny how the creationists spout evolutionist theories when they want their way.

I completely agree with your way of thinking Alty.

galveston - yes I have heard of adoption but you would be surprised how many mothers who don't want their children keep them anyway.

There is no point arguing about it on here as everyone is going to have a different opinion.

excon was just saying that Sarah Palin was being a hypocrite by saying that she had thought about abortion when she is basically a spokesperson for an anti-abortion campaign.

[speechlesstx]

It has the potential for life, it's not human yet. Yes, it's a blob of cells, that, if left to grow for 9 months, inside the uterus of a woman, will turn into a human, if all goes well.

Sorry alt, it's either alive or it isn't.

At first it has no arms, legs, heart, lungs, eyes, fingers, toes, ears, nothing that would make it even resemble a human being.

This is week 4, it has a heart, a liver, a brain, eyes and limbs are forming:

It cannot be sustained outside of a women, so how can it be alive?

Its heart is beating 22 days after conception, how can it not be alive?

Human beings are self sustaining, they live, breath, walk, talk. A blob of cells cannot do any of those things, in fact, if exposed to the air outside of the uterus, if taken out of it's environment, it will cease to exist.

Exactly, which is why we have laws to protect the most helpless... except when it comes to the unborn. The womb should be the ultimate safe haven. There, I said it, I must be a terrorist.

Funny how the creationists spout evolutionist theories when they want their way.

It's even odder how evolutionists abandon them when they're inconvenient. If they can't believe their own arguments just what do they believe?

[inthebox]

It has the potential for life, it's not human yet. Yes, it's a blob of cells, that, if left to grow for 9 months, inside the uterus of a woman, will turn into a human, if all goes well.

At first it has no arms, legs, heart, lungs, eyes, fingers, toes, ears, nothing that would make it even resemble a human being. It cannot be sustained outside of a women, so how can it be alive?

A blob of cells cannot do any of those things, in fact, if exposed to the air outside of the uterus, if taken out of it's environment, it will cease to exist.

Funny how the creationists spout evolutionist theories when they want their way.

The argument that only

Human beings are self sustaining, they live, breath, walk, talk.

falls flat when you realize that a lot of folks, especially in the nursing homes, cannot walk or rely on other humans or tubes to feed them. Would you suggest that these folks are "abortable?"

How about if a person is not "self sustaning" because they stopped breathing and or their heart stopped working? Would you suggest that people, emergencyservices, etc. NEVER do cpr or try to resussitate these folks?

As to POTENTIAL; children are potential adults, do we value their life any less?
In the sports world, a lot of high draft picks are based on "potential" some of which are never to be realized, ;) but where there is POTENTIAL there is also HOPE.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would suggest to women, since they will ultimately carry the pregnancy and be primarily responsible for raising the child [ because men often times just run away :mad: ], that after an ill advised and or unprotected tryst, ask their doctor / nurse/ pharmacist for extra birthcontrol pills the next day, to prevent conception.




G&P

[Sunflowers]

She would like to prevent someone from doing something she has decided is wrong. She knows first hand about being faced with a medical reason for making that choice, but she has convinced herself abortion is wrong SO naturally she'd make it illegal (if she could) so no other woman could make the wrong choice.

I'm a pro choice person myself but I can see her reasoning. If she really believes abortion is wrong and she actually had the thought of having one, she knows how close she came to doing it, how easy it would be to do what she believes is the wrong thing; why, she'd be doing everyone a favor by making abortion illegal. NOT.

[galveston]

She would like to prevent someone from doing something she has decided is wrong. She knows first hand about being faced with a medical reason for making that choice, but she has convinced herself abortion is wrong SO naturally she'd make it illegal (if she could) so no other woman could make the wrong choice.

I'm a pro choice person myself but I can see her reasoning. If she really believes abortion is wrong and she actually had the thought of having one, she knows how close she came to doing it, how easy it would be to do what she believes is the wrong thing; why, she'd be doing everyone a favor by making abortion illegal. NOT.

I also am pro choice. It is just that I differ with you as to when the choice should be made. I believe she should make her choice BEFORE intercourse.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

It was WRONG for HER, given her beliefs, and isn't it great that she had the choice? Besides, I don't condemn her for her fleeting thought. It's quite natural, after all. I condemn her for supporting law that would demonize others for having that same thought.

excon

Again, that's a cop-out response.

Wrong is wrong. It isn't wrong for some and right for others.

[ETWolverine]

As far as Palin's so-called hipocracy, I don't think so.

So she once thought fleetingly about having an abortion. I once thought fleetingly about committing murder. So what. That doesn't constitute being hypocritical. If she had said ONE thing and done ANOTHER... that would be different. If she had had the abortion and then wanted to prevent others from having one, THAT would be hypocritical.

Nor did she "make a choice that she is denying others". She never made a choice. She simply did what was right. No "choice" was required.

Is a defense attorney a hypocrite because he defends murderers but "chooses" not to be a murderer himself? Is a prosecutor a hypocrite because he was once so angry at someone he contemplated murder for a fleeting second but "chose" not to? That's the logic you are using.

It's a ridiculous argument.

Anything to bash Palin. You lefties must be pretty scared of her if you're still going after her 5 months after she lost the election. Afraid that she might be back on the national scene in 2012?

Elliot